Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (video game)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm planning on reviewing this article and will be getting around to it in the next few days. Just a note that this is a WP:WIKICUP review as well. Nomader (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The first 3 sentences in the "Development" section use the word "concept" 6 times -- we should look for alternatives here.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Per WP:LEADCITE, references aren't necessarily in the lead as long as the subject matter is covered in the remainder of the article. The only sentence that isn't is the note about the game's legacy, which should be more extensively covered in the article anyways and could be fit into it still.

   Do the other versions also follow the same mission structure? The lead should note that if it isn't the case. Same with the multiplayer bit here.

   Not sure what "living operative" means in the lead here.

   The reception section would be better served by grouping feedback by theme instead of just quoting reviewers. Maybe a paragraph on feedback about realism that's generally positive followed by a paragraph about shortcomings in the AI issues? Right now, it's just "All GameSpot comments" followed by "All IGN comments" and it'd be better served this way instead. (See Turok 2: Seeds of Evil#Reception and Serious Sam's Bogus Detour as quick GA examples that I pulled to show what I mean here).

   I think a good review of the "Plot" section per MOS:PLOT would be helpful here, and the section can probably be summarized further. As an example, I'd change the first two sentences to something like:

   "A post-Cold War rise in terrorist groups orchestrating attacks internationally causes the world's military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies to form "Rainbow", a top secret multinational counterterrorist organization led by John Clark, in 1999."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   There are 4 "citation needed" tags which should be urgently addressed, including around some large topics like multiplayer and who specific publishers of the game are.

   There are a number of notes in the development section that should really have citations (particularly in the mostly not-cited second paragraph). I'd do a once-over of the entire article and add in more citations where there are blanks here.

   c. (OR):

   Spot check confirms that refs discuss what's cited here. The Eurogamer article really is a fountain of information.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Per Earwig, we're good here. Most similarities are just direct quotes from coverage.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   GAs don't require comprehensiveness in their coverage, but in order for it to meet the "broad in its coverage" threshold, there should be more information on the console releases. If there isn't that much information on its development, that's fine, but it should be noted in the development section that this was for the PC version of the game.

   The reception section should also include more takes on the individual console releases which are only lightly commented on here (especially the GBC game which seems to be entirely different). If the above suggestions on reception sections are made, a brief "Console version critical reception" paragraph might be in order that notes major differences in feedback between them and the PC version. If the game is significantly different between a GBC and the rest of the versions that it would be impossible to cover properly, you could also approach it like the GA Crash of the Titans, which also has Crash of the Titans (Nintendo DS video game). The development section would also benefit from a little commentary on the other versions as well.

   I don't think it needs to be in the table, but a small section on reception to the Eagle Watch expansion would be good here. Was it also only PC-based? Is there any development information that's relevant too? (Not as big of a deal if there isn't tbh)

   b. (focused):

   Only note from me on summary style issues is the need for the plot to be tightened a bit (especially for a game like this where the gameplay is far more pronounced, it leads it into undue territory).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Putting this review on hold -- there's significant issues that need to be addressed, but I think they're definitely doable here. Really good work bringing it up to where it is now, and happy to help answer any questions you might have about my comments too. Also a note that I'll be on vacation from next Friday the 24th through the 28th. Nomader (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

   I added the copyvio check to this list (wasn't in there before for some reason). Nomader (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Forgot to reply in earlier edits, but I've dealt with the following to a reasonable degree:

• Well-written, points a. and b.
  • "Concept" instances cut down appropriately.
  • References mostly removed from lead. Haven't done much on the game's legacy, but mentions of it being influential and significant are in reviews, and are quoted where appropriate.
  • Other versions have different numbers of missions. Never played them, but they seem to have similar gameplay.
  • "Living operative" meant any operative that wasn't dead. Turns out that still wasn't right, and you can apparently only switch between team leaders; edited that out.
  • Reorganized and expanded reception section. Organized into specific focuses of criticism in general, followed by platform-specific reception.
  • Plot summarized.
• Verifiable, point b.
  • Cited those. Removed the one about multiplayer; it was a leftover from the article before I came to edit it, and was never really sourced to begin with. Might've just been someone's lived experience from the time.
• Broad in coverage, point a. and b.
  • Added more information on the console ports. Very little information is available on port development, but I added what little I could.
  • Reception section expanded to cover console ports better. Not to the extent of the PC port though—it's actually kind of hard to access most of these reviews, seeing they were mostly in print magazines without online copies—but there's about three reviews cited per platform, with more in the reviews template box.
  • Reviews for Eagle Watch moved to their own subsection. From what I can tell, it was PC only, but some levels were used in other ports (e.g. Palace of Westminster appearing in the Nintendo 64 port). Unfortunately, I can't find any information on its development.
  • Not sure what this means, but good chance my light edits to the plot tightened it a bit.

Again, this is to some degree; it'd be neat if you could look these over again and give more pointers. AdoTang (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@AdoTang: Just from a first glance, these improvements already look to be huge. Thanks for being so thorough here! Will have capacity in the next couple of days to take a look at it, will ping once I've re-reviewed. Nomader (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@AdoTang: We're almost there. I went through the article with a little copyedit to ensure that the way ports were described are correct (the PC release isn't a "port", as it's the original version), but the expanded content really addresses most of my issues. I've found a couple of sources that I've listed out below here that should be helpful in addressing the development console port stuff that you mentioned:

• IGN interview with Saffire on the N64 development (the note about struggling to make the PC controls work with the N64 controller could probably be included, along with the need to drop multiplayer because of framerate, that they "redesigned and rebuilt the game from scratch", along with some other interesting tidbits -- don't need to go too WP:UNDUE here but it should be included) [1]
• GameSpot UK did an interview with Crawfish about the GBC version, but alas, the link doesn't work on Archive.org and we only get snippets. Still helpful that we get context that the perspective that they chose was because any other version "wouldn't do the game justice" but ech, it's so developer talker-y. I wish I could find the original interview here. ([2])

I'd also cut the part of the sentence that says "Little is known about the development processes of these ports" and just have the rest of the sentence exist on its own (we may find sources in the future that were in magazines or something).

Otherwise-- as I said above, we're almost there! I'd say just clean up the end of the development section with these sources and my other note here, and you're good to go. Great work on tightening up the plot section and the reception section is really well done. Once you've made these last changes I mentioned above, ping me and I'll pass the article. Nomader (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@AdoTang: I'm about to go on vacation so I went ahead and made the additions about the other ports to the page myself at the end of the development section -- feel free to edit these as you'd like. In the meantime though, I'm happy to pass this nomination. Thanks so much for doing such a thorough pass-through of the article, really impressive work all around! Nomader (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.